|
|
#61
09-17-2007, 02:32 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: 500 pushups in 2 hours
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] It seems clear in this thread that you were quite skeptical (which is fine)-- you went on to say that nobody in the thread had provided justification for their assertions, but you were simply wrong there, because you couldn't evaluate what good and bad justifications were. For example, if I had to bet, I'd quickly take the guy who can do 48 in two minutes-- I just don't think he's a lock as compared to other indicators. [/ QUOTE ] LOL. Okay, so 48 pushups in 2 minutes is data proving that 500 pushups in 2 hrs is no problem. Sheesh, this thread just got more retarded. [/ QUOTE ] Fine. I got Smiley. Let's bet? You have no fricken clue. I can tell you why-- but I want the bet first. [/ QUOTE ] Dude, you don't get it. Just because you know the guy and know he can do it doesn't mean crap. You're making a generalization regarding everybody because you know one can can do it and will bet on it. That's backwards. If you think 48 pushups in 2 minutes is such a lock for 500 pushups in 2 hrs, then let ME pick the guy who can do 48. 
|
|
#62
09-17-2007, 02:38 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 500 pushups in 2 hours
[ QUOTE ]
Dude, you don't get it. Just because you know the guy and know he can do it doesn't mean crap. You're making a generalization regarding everybody because you know one can can do it and will bet on it. That's backwards. If you think 48 pushups in 2 minutes is such a lock for 500 pushups in 2 hrs, then let ME pick the guy who can do 48. [/ QUOTE ] Listen, moron: I don't know the guy and never met him. Further, I said that 48/2 minutes is not a lock. I think it is a clear favorite. If we can find a person that you know that I don't know, you don't know, etc., then we can do this thing-- we actually already have-- but fine, you want someone else. You don't get it. And like I said, I could tell you why, but I'd rather bet first.
|
|
#63
09-17-2007, 02:46 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 500 pushups in 2 hours
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Dude, you don't get it. Just because you know the guy and know he can do it doesn't mean crap. You're making a generalization regarding everybody because you know one can can do it and will bet on it. That's backwards. If you think 48 pushups in 2 minutes is such a lock for 500 pushups in 2 hrs, then let ME pick the guy who can do 48. [/ QUOTE ] Listen, moron: I don't know the guy and never met him. Further, I said that 48/2 minutes is not a lock. I think it is a clear favorite. If we can find a person that you know that I don't know, you don't know, etc., then we can do this thing-- we actually already have-- but fine, you want someone else. You don't get it. And like I said, I could tell you why, but I'd rather bet first. [/ QUOTE ] So this whole thread you've known why 48/2 is a good indicator, but its too secret to tell anyone even though thats the thrust of the whole thread. Thanks.
|
|
#65
09-17-2007, 02:53 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 500 pushups in 2 hours
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] You don't get it. And like I said, I could tell you why, but I'd rather bet first. [/ QUOTE ] So this whole thread you've known why 48/2 is a good indicator, but its too secret to tell anyone even though thats the thrust of the whole thread. Thanks. [/ QUOTE ] I just figured out what your conceptual problem was and what my conceptual advantage was in a more rigorous way. I was finally annoyed enough about what you construed as faultless logic that I thought about it a bit more. You are 0 for 87. Thanks. edit: to remove the "Moron" and "stupidity"-- too much of that.
|
|
#66
09-17-2007, 02:56 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 500 pushups in 2 hours
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] You don't get it. And like I said, I could tell you why, but I'd rather bet first. [/ QUOTE ] So this whole thread you've known why 48/2 is a good indicator, but its too secret to tell anyone even though thats the thrust of the whole thread. Thanks. [/ QUOTE ] No. Moron. I just figured out what your conceptual problem was and what my conceptual advantage was in a more rigorous way. I was finally annoyed enough with your stupidity about what you construed as faultless logic that I thought about it a bit more. You are 0 for 87. Thanks. [/ QUOTE ] Yeah, I'm 0 for 87. 4 of X in 1 minute --> 500 of X in 2 hrs is easy. I stand corrected.
|
|
#67
09-17-2007, 02:59 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 500 pushups in 2 hours
[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, I'm 0 for 87. 4 of X in 1 minute --> 500 of X in 2 hrs is easy. I stand corrected. [/ QUOTE ] 1 for 87? I meant in connection with me, and that was hyperbole. Congrats though on getting that one right.
|
|
#69
09-17-2007, 03:14 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 500 pushups in 2 hours
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Okay, so 48 pushups in 2 minutes is data proving that 500 pushups in 2 hrs is no problem. Sheesh, this thread just got more retarded. [/ QUOTE ] It was this comment specifically that provoked me, btw. That what you found LOL was due to your ignorance, that I was somehow retarded, all compounded with a mischaracterization of how I priced the outcome (no problem). I'll tell you what I suspect is your problem. You seem to be generalizing from your knowledge of how fatigue accumulates in aerobic work. Here we are talking about ~8 minutes of anaerobic work spread out of 120. If 5s of push-ups is a small enough fraction of that person's 1 set max, they will likely meet the challenge. Some folks will handle fatigue/recovery better/worse based on training and genetic muscle composition so it's hard for me to call anyone, with less than about a 70 1 set max a lock-- but the break even point is going to be well below 50. And I don't think you are a moron. I apologize for that. I do think you were slow to accept that you didn't have grounds for evaluating this claim.
|
|
#70
09-17-2007, 04:57 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: 500 pushups in 2 hours
Here's the rules for a pushup for the record book.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
